The Auto Industry is Next in Line to Board the Gravy Train

The financial services industry was certainly first in line. And now it seems that Hank Paulson, who was overly eager to help out Wall Street by buying up the bad mortgage assets, found out that things were more complicated than originally thought. So now we are following Britain's Gordon Brown model and injecting capital directly into the financial institutions after all. Doesn't inspire much confidence in a man who was first hailed as a savior of the economy!

As is always the case (and I know this as someone who works for a company that has a large presence in federal contracting), when the government creates a new spending plan, companies will line up to see if they can get a piece of the pie. So it comes as no suprise that the automakers are blaming their imminent demise on the recent economic downturn. What a joke! These companies have been badly run and held hostage by their union obligations for years, and now that the Federal Reserve's bank vault has been thrown open, they want theirs.

But this is a winning issue for Democrats over Republicans on so many levels:

1. On the presidential level, Republicans feel forsaken by the voters in Michigan once again. Obama won not only Michigan but also Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, the so-called rust belt. Understandably, Republicans in Congress are little interested in helping Michigan's Democratic Gov. Jennifer Granholm, nor Democratic Senators Carl Levin and Debbie Stabenow. Michigan has more Repbublican Congressional Representatives than Democratic and all have fiercely defended Detroit's interests...to Detroit's great detriment! Average fleet mileage standards? SUVs categorized as trucks instead of cars so that they're not part of CAFE standards? So if the Republicans are going to use the lame duck session to make their stand against one of the largest U.S. manufacturers and cede car production to the Japanese, Koreans, and Chinese in the name of allowing the market to determine winners and losers, Democrats win and Republicans will be blamed for killing America's largest manufacturing sector.
   
2. Since President Bush and the Republicans got whupped, they have talked incessantly about going back to their "core principles," whatever that means! I suspect they wish to return to a vision of themselves as fiscally responsible, which might mean blocking any proposed bailout for Detroit on the grounds that the federal government has no business picking winners and losers. The market has rendered its verdict, and now the Republicans seem poised to defend their principles at the expense of the millions of jobs that will be lost. Seems politically disastrous, but the Repubs are suffering a severe identity crisis! But they're probably also hoping to break the backs of the United Auto Workers Union, a Democratic constituency.
   
3. Since Obama wants to help with a bailout, as do the Democrats in the House and the Senate, they will get to look like heroes to their base (unions), even as the Republicans alienate those same folks. Obama may also be able to seize this opportunity to put his health care program in place at one of the largest companies in the United States. One of Detroit's hugest expenses in health care coverage for the workers and retirees. I'm sure that GM would willingly give that obligation over to Obama's health care plan. And there's the foothold we need!

So as far as I'm concerned, Obama and the Dems should seize the opportunity to help Detroit and extract Draconian terms as part of the bargain. Might be the best way for Obama to get going on health care!

The Political Post Mortem

This is my favorite part of the political season, when the winners are lauded as geniuses and the losers exposed as backbiting and disorganized. Ann Kornblut of the Washington Post is a political insider who had the definitive story of how Hillary Clinton's campaign was in disarray following losses to Obama on Super Tuesday, and she did the same for the McCain campaign on Wednesday, as did Elisabeth Bumiller for the New York Times.

Frankly I'm not sure what to believe regarding the riffs between McCain and Palin or Palin and her handlers, but the knives are certainly out, aren't they? Campbell Brown had the best response to it all, blasting the McCain campaign operatives for dissing the the vice-presidential candidate that they themselves had picked and for telling us for weeks that she was ready to be one heartbeat away.



Are we to believe them now or what they were saying then? I'd rather believe them now, partly given that we saw how woefully unprepared Ms. Palin was to answer question during the Katie Couric interviews and partly because her stump rhetoric was just so mean spirited! It's ironic that Republicans channel Ronald Reagan in every election but they don't know anything about being positive in the way that he was. All their talk is fear-based. But I digress. I think these aides are devoted to McCain and trying to protect his legacy. Ironically, the more they bash his VP choice, the more people will conclude that John McCain was not in control of one of the most important decisions of his campaign, and how does that make him look deliberative or presidential? Maverick ain't lookin' so good these days!

Best Political Election Cartoons

The Boston Globe had some great links to political cartoons on its website. Many are moving, but this is one of my favorites that shows America "reclaiming" its place in the world. So many people in so many countries love Americans but disdain America's government. We have certainly earned our props this time!



But the ones with Lincoln, especially this one, moved me to tears yet again! Love that terrorist fist jab! Ha!

YES WE DID!

When the moment came I was unprepared. Having worked on the Obama campaign in Prince William County, Virginia since mid September, I was determined that I would do my part to help get this man elected. (I'll admit right here that Sarah Palin's selection scared me into action when McCain rose in the polls following the Republican convention.) Before this year, I'd donated neither time nor money to a campaign at any level, but somewhere along the line, say after the South Carolina primary, the race became personal to me. I'd written about this in an earlier post, but I identified with Obama on a gut level, especially with the early charges in the Black community that Obama was not Black enough, a sting that I too had felt during my college years at Brown University.

Early in the year, I became obsessed with political news and even began blogging in this space to record my thoughts. I played with online electoral maps, obsessed over statewide polling numbers on RealClearPolitics.com, treated Chuck Todd like a sage, and made good use of the picture in picture feature on my new TV so that I could watch both MSNBC and CNN at the same time (which drove my partner nuts!).

On election night I knew the only path to victory for McCain lay through Pennsylvania and that Obama's team worked to ensure that they would have more than one path to 270 electoral votes. That was why I volunteered in Virginia to help turn that red state blue after all! But watching the results at Station 9, a restaurant/bar near my home, I really got caught up in the moments. Each state win was greeted with cheers and high fives as if we just couldn't be sure it was going to go our way. But of course the networks all had their plans to call the election at 11:00 p.m. when the polls in California, Oregon, Washington State, and Hawaii closed (77 electoral votes in total). When Pennsylvania and Ohio were called before 10 p.m. Obama had 195 electoral votes, so it was just a matter of waiting for the polls to close on the west coast. When New Mexico (5 electoral votes) and Iowa (7) were called for Obama before 11:00, Obama had 207 so at 11:00, Wolf Blitzer could announce that "Barack Obama will be the next president of the United States!"


The condensed evening on CNN leading up to the big win

A DJ played music like "Celebration" by Kool & the Gang and "Can You Feel It" by the Jacksons, Will.i.am's "Yes We Can" etc. Tears and hugs were free flowing. Everyone danced and pulsed together for 15 minutes. I cried on Brian's shoulder, I looked at the screen, I cried some more (and I know it was an ugly cry!), I danced, I marveled at the sea of younger people surrounding us and just felt so powerfully moved to have been part of such a movement. I'll never forget that night and its historical impact.

We snuck out after McCain's gracious concession speech so that we could watch Obama's first words as president-elect at home. Already fireworks were going off and people were pouring through the streets just letting their joy flow in whatever way they felt appropriate. Horns honked, people beamed, and more hugs went around. During his speech (in which he seemed more somber in tone than I would have expected), again the tears flowed and have been flowing every time I see images like the new first family bedecked in black and red walking out on that stage together.

The next morning, I had to go to the Newseum and see all of the front pages of the country's and the world's newspapers. Others made pilgrimage to the Lincoln memorial. A fellow African-American of my age told me how he'd cried and that he sat his children down at breakfast that morning to say that in America anything is possible with hard work and determination. Again the tears flowed at the power of that notion. A black man is poised to become the most powerful person in the world! I myself, educated at elite institutions, never thought that I would see a black men elected president. I even thought that the first black president would be a Republican like Colin Powell, someone who would not come to the American people with racial grievance in his (or her) history, but I never anticipated Barack Obama. So much of the commentary has been to the effect that Obama's victory marginalizes Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton even more. Hallelujah! Let President Barack Obama carry that torch now. He will lead by example that he is president of everyone in the United States and certainly not by overt racial appeals. That's not how he ran and not what the country expects of him. I look forward to crying at his inauguration and taking part in this historic moment fully.

The Bradley Effect Will Be Reborn as the Obama Effect

The "Bradley Effect" is one of those oft-repeated myths in politics. The idea centers around believing that whites would tell a pollster that they intended to vote for a black candidate but then in the privacy of the voting booth would change their minds and vote for the other candidate. The more extreme view is that an individual would outright lie about supporting a black candidate in order to sound racially accepting knowing full well that as a voter he or she could never vote for a black candidate. In Tom Bradley's case, though he was favored by 10% in polls leading up to election day in 1982, he lost his bid for the California governorship to Republican George Deukmejian.

But let's break this notion down. Why would a voter lie to a pollster, i.e. would someone with overt racial prejudice state for some reason an intention to vote for a black candidate? Does a voter stating an intent to vote for an opponent of a black candidate somehow automatically imply racial bias? Seems like a stretch to me. Then I found out from listening to Tell Me More on NPR and following up by reading an op-ed in the New York Times, the Bradley Effect is--surprise--an oversimplification! The only racial bias is that used by the media in attempting to explain the results of a complex election with the simplest of explanations. What may also have lost Bradley the governorship was that Republicans had a ballot issue on guns that year which energized Republicans (guns, God, and gays!) to come out and vote. In addition, more than a million absentee ballots were cast that year (another stealth effort of the Republicans) and their votes were not included in any of the pre-election polling models.

So the Bradley Effect, as it is widely understood, had little to nothing to do with racial politics. And in fact, I would submit that this year we may see an effect that should be called the Obama Effect. Kathleen Parker noted this last week in the Washington Post, and I'm quite sure after canvassing in Virginia, that there may be a considerable number of voters who would never admit intending to vote for the democrat to their families, co-workers, and friends. But in the privacy of the voting booth, seeing that the Republican party of today is bereft of its stated ideals, some voters who would never declare so in public may pull the lever for...Democrat Barack Obama.

The Democrats Have Their Own "Hillary Clinton" Now

I'll admit that I panicked when Sarah Palin came on the scene. I saw her introductory speech the Friday after the end of the Democratic nominating convention and was duly impressed. She had formidable skills connecting with her audience and a biography as a woman governor, mother of five, and a solid conservative that gave me pause if not outright fear that she could be the one to suck the oxygen out of the Obama campaign. In fact, that's just what happened for two weeks or so following the Republican convention, where Gov. Palin wowed the crowd even as the press was digging trying to find out who she was.

But now a Washington Post/ABC poll shows that Palin is a bigger drag on McCain's ticket than even President Bush! (Remind you of any particular democrat who is popular with the base but not the rest of the country?) I guess serving as the McCain campaign's attack dog drove up Palin's negatives with independents even as the Republican base gobbled up the red meat she was serving. Although there is still talk of what Sarah Palin will do after the campaign ends and whether she'll be back in 2012, there is no doubt that Democrats would take great pleasure in working to defeat her. Just as Republicans recoiled at the thought of a President Hillary Clinton and would surely have mobilized like never before to defeat her, Sarah Palin now serves the same function for the Democrats. She causes a gag reflex among most liberals and Democrats alike. The idea that McCain thought that Democrats would trade Hillary Clinton for Sarah Palin was insulting enough, but now she's getting so much negative media coverage that it will be hard for her to recover the middle ground where many women's politics lie.

Personally I'm hoping that a few years in the wilderness will force Republicans to come back with a more inclusive message. Perhaps the country is not so center right after all. And besides, Mitt Romney, Tom Ridge, Bobby Jhindal, and who knows who else might have something very forceful to say about Palin trying to win the Republican nomination for the presidency in 4 years even as many hard core Republicans view Palin as the future of their party. But wouldn't that be a fascinating race to watch? Palin will have more experience governing Alaska (assuming she can get re-elected) as well as the invaluable experience of having been part of a national campaign. And she certainly knows how to eviscerate her opponents with a wink and a smile! Sarah Barracuda is not going away, but we Democrats are hopeful that other Republicans who praise her now will take her down just as Republicans were grateful that Barack Obama took Hillary out of the game.

And just like with Hillary, the media have found a new figure with whom the public is fascinated--by her marriage, her political machinations, and of course her personal style. If John McCain loses (let alone should he win) the media will happily speculate about what Sarah Palin will be doing the next four years. We have already seen the beginnings of the pack journalism mentality going after the next new thing!

Tracking Conservatives Who Support Obama (Or at Least Think Palin Has Got to Go)

Much has been made of the whispers in conservative circles regarding McCain's candidacy. Much of the invective is directed at Sarah Palin and I somehow fear she will be blamed for the fall of the Republicans from power as surely as Eve was blamed for Adam's fall from grace. Personally I can't stand the woman's politics, but she has only performed as she was directed to by her patron, John McCain. Still, most of the conservatives who are now displeased with the prospect of losing the White House (odd that winning 7 of the last 10 contests leads the Repubs to such a sense of entitlement) usually get around to citing the Palin pick as woefully lacking given our times and smacks right in the face of John McCain's judgment and the notion of "country first." I love how Laura Ingraham and others dismiss these intellectual conservatives as not representing the "real" America, whatever the hell that means! But just for the fun of it, here are some of my favorites. Almost all praise Obama, but I have to admit I take special pleasure in posting the ones that bash McCain-Palin:

10/31/08
On thedailybeast.com, Jeffrey Harte, a former speechwriter to Reagan and Nixon who also worked at the National Review for four decades, is also endorsing Obama as a repudiation of the Bush years and the defiling of true conservatism: "Republican President George W. Bush has not been a conservative at all, either in domestic policy or in foreign policy. He invaded Iraq on the basis of abstract theory, the very thing Burke warned against. Bush aimed to turn Iraq into a democracy, "a beacon of liberty in the Middle East," as he explained in a radio address in April 2006.

I do not recall any "conservative" publication mentioning those now memorable words "Sunni," "Shia," or "Kurds." Burke would have been appalled at the blindness to history and to social facts that characterized the writing of those so-called conservatives.

Obama did understand. In his now famous 2002 speech, while he was still a state senator in Illinois, he said: 'I know that a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, of undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without international support will fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than the best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda. I'm not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.' "

From CNN: "Former Reagan chief of staff Ken Duberstein told CNN's Fareed Zakaria this week he intends to vote for Democrat Barack Obama on Tuesday.

Duberstein said he was influenced by another prominent Reagan official - Colin Powell - in his decision.

"Well let's put it this way - I think Colin Powell's decision is in fact the good housekeeping seal of approval on Barack Obama."

Powell served as national security advisor to Reagan during Duberstein's tenure as chief of staff.

Duberstein spoke with Zakaria about his final days in the Reagan White House. The Reagan official, along with Clinton Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Carter National Security Advisor Zbigniew Brzezinski, also discussed the transition process to a new administration."

10/30/08
Lawrence Eagleburger was the secretary of state for George H.W. Bush, the undersecretary of state for political affairs for Ronald Reagan, and a U.S. ambassador to Yugoslavia. On NPR's Talk of the Nation Eagleburger said of Governor Palin: "I don't think at the moment she is prepared to take over the reins of the presidency," he says. "I can name for you any number of other vice presidents who were not particularly up to it either. So, the question, I think, is — can she learn and would she be tough enough under the circumstances if she were asked to become president?"

"Give her some time in the office and I think the answer would be — she will be adequate. I can't say that she would be a genius in the job," he adds.

10/20/08
Ken Adelman, a conservative Republican who "campaigned for Goldwater, was hired by Rumsfeld at the Office of Economic Opportunity under Nixon, was assistant to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld under Ford, served as Reagan’s director of arms control, and joined the Defense Policy Board for Rumsfeld’s second go-round at the Pentagon, in 2001" was interviewed via e-mail in The New Yorker:

"Why so, since my views align a lot more with McCain’s than with Obama’s? And since I truly dread the notion of a Democratic president, Democratic House, and hugely Democratic Senate?

Primarily for two reasons, those of temperament and of judgment.

When the economic crisis broke, I found John McCain bouncing all over the place. In those first few crisis days, he was impetuous, inconsistent, and imprudent; ending up just plain weird. Having worked with Ronald Reagan for seven years, and been with him in his critical three summits with Gorbachev, I’ve concluded that that’s no way a president can act under pressure.

Second is judgment. The most important decision John McCain made in his long campaign was deciding on a running mate.

That decision showed appalling lack of judgment. Not only is Sarah Palin not close to being acceptable in high office—I would not have hired her for even a mid-level post in the arms-control agency. But that selection contradicted McCain’s main two, and best two, themes for his campaign—Country First, and experience counts. Neither can he credibly claim, post-Palin pick.

I sure hope Obama is more open, centrist, sensible—dare I say, Clintonesque—than his liberal record indicates, than his cooperation with Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid portends. If not, I will be even more startled by my vote than I am now."

10/19/08
Michael Smerconish, The Philadelphia Inquirer: "John McCain is an honorable man who has served his country well. But he will not get my vote. For the first time since registering as a Republican 28 years ago, I'm voting for a Democrat for president. I may have been an appointee in the George H.W. Bush administration, and master of ceremonies for George W. Bush in 2004, but last Saturday I stood amid the crowd at an Obama event in North Philadelphia...Last Saturday at Progress Plaza, I heard Obama say: 'The American people aren't looking for somebody to divide this country; the American people are looking for someone to lead this country.'"

10/17/08
Peggy Noonan, Wall Street Journal: "Her supporters accuse her critics of snobbery: Maybe she's not a big "egghead" but she has brilliant instincts and inner toughness. But what instincts? "I'm Joe Six-Pack"? She does not speak seriously but attempts to excite sensation—"palling around with terrorists." If the Ayers case is a serious issue, treat it seriously. She is not as thoughtful or persuasive as Joe the Plumber, who in an extended cable interview Thursday made a better case for the Republican ticket than the Republican ticket has made. In the past two weeks she has spent her time throwing out tinny lines to crowds she doesn't, really, understand. This is not a leader, this is a follower, and she follows what she imagines is the base, which is in fact a vast and broken-hearted thing whose pain she cannot, actually, imagine. She could reinspire and reinspirit; she chooses merely to excite. She doesn't seem to understand the implications of her own thoughts."

10/13/08
Christopher Hitchens, slate.com: "The most insulting thing that a politician can do is to compel you to ask yourself: "What does he take me for?" Precisely this question is provoked by the selection of Gov. Sarah Palin. I wrote not long ago that it was not right to condescend to her just because of her provincial roots or her piety, let alone her slight flirtatiousness, but really her conduct since then has been a national disgrace. It turns out that none of her early claims to political courage was founded in fact, and it further turns out that some of the untested rumors about her—her vindictiveness in local quarrels, her bizarre religious and political affiliations—were very well-founded, indeed. Moreover, given the nasty and lowly task of stirring up the whack-job fringe of the party's right wing and of recycling patent falsehoods about Obama's position on Afghanistan, she has drawn upon the only talent that she apparently possesses."

10/10/08
Christopher Buckley, thedailybeast.com, and son of National Review founder William F. Buckley: "John McCain has changed. He said, famously, apropos the Republican debacle post-1994, “We came to Washington to change it, and Washington changed us.” This campaign has changed John McCain. It has made him inauthentic. A once-first class temperament has become irascible and snarly; his positions change, and lack coherence; he makes unrealistic promises, such as balancing the federal budget “by the end of my first term.” Who, really, believes that? Then there was the self-dramatizing and feckless suspension of his campaign over the financial crisis. His ninth-inning attack ads are mean-spirited and pointless. And finally, not to belabor it, there was the Palin nomination. What on earth can he have been thinking?"

10/9/08
David Brooks, The New York Times: "Palin is smart, politically skilled, courageous and likable. Her convention and debate performances were impressive. But no American politician plays the class-warfare card as constantly as Palin. Nobody so relentlessly divides the world between the “normal Joe Sixpack American” and the coastal elite.

She is another step in the Republican change of personality. Once conservatives admired Churchill and Lincoln above all — men from wildly different backgrounds who prepared for leadership through constant reading, historical understanding and sophisticated thinking. Now those attributes bow down before the common touch."

9/28/08
Kathleen Parker, Washington Post: "Palin's recent interviews with Charles Gibson, Sean Hannity and now Katie Couric have all revealed an attractive, earnest, confident candidate. Who Is Clearly Out Of Her League.

No one hates saying that more than I do. Like so many women, I've been pulling for Palin, wishing her the best, hoping she will perform brilliantly. I've also noticed that I watch her interviews with the held breath of an anxious parent, my finger poised over the mute button in case it gets too painful. Unfortunately, it often does. My cringe reflex is exhausted.

Palin filibusters. She repeats words, filling space with deadwood. Cut the verbiage, and there's not much content there."

9/5/08
Charles Krauthammer, Washington Post: "Obama was sagging because of missteps that reflected the fundamental weakness of his candidacy. Which suggested McCain's strategy: Make this a referendum on Obama, surely the least experienced, least qualified, least prepared presidential nominee in living memory.

Palin fatally undermines this entire line of attack. This is through no fault of her own. It is simply a function of her rookie status. The vice president's only constitutional duty of any significance is to become president at a moment's notice. Palin is not ready. Nor is Obama. But with Palin, the case against Obama evaporates. "

Endorsement Go-Round

Lately I've found myself in tears reading the newspapers (online that is). And the same thing happened yesterday during "Meet the Press." I was overcome with emotion so quickly that I didn't really know how to get control of what was happening within me. Upon reflection I guess I was just feeling in my gut the possibility (the reality?) that these United States might just elect a black man to become president! This is no small achievement for our nation and one that I frankly never thought I would see in my lifetime. But then here comes this Barack Obama seemingly out of nowhere, poised to get rid of the baby boomers and all of their existential angst, 60s idealism, and arguments over who lost the Vietnam War. This is truly a time of generational transformation in our country. It is only fitting that in this referendum on the issues facing our country, this election--like Clinton vs. Bush in 1992--is viewed as the older generation's priorities vs. against the younger generation's. Here, I will keep track of the endorsements thus far, with the most recent first.

11/3/08
How beautiful that Dick Cheney's hometown paper, the Casper Star-Tribune also endorsed Obama! "It would be easy for the Star-Tribune to simply agree with the majority of voters in this red state and endorse the Republican candidate for president.

But this isn't an ordinary election, and Sen. Barack Obama has the potential to be an extraordinary leader at a time we desperately need one. The next occupant of the White House will inherit a national economy that's collapsing and two wars our nation has been fighting for years, depleting valuable resources we need to fix a multitude of domestic problems. Far too many of our nation's citizens live paycheck to paycheck, worried about whether they'll have a job next week or if a medical crisis will bankrupt them.

What America needs most in these troubled times is a president who will move the country in a positive direction. The candidate who is most likely to chart a new course that will lead us to better days is Obama. Moreover, he is the best candidate for Wyoming."

10/30/08
The Economist: "Is Mr Obama any better? Most of the hoopla about him has been about what he is, rather than what he would do. His identity is not as irrelevant as it sounds. Merely by becoming president, he would dispel many of the myths built up about America: it would be far harder for the spreaders of hate in the Islamic world to denounce the Great Satan if it were led by a black man whose middle name is Hussein; and far harder for autocrats around the world to claim that American democracy is a sham. America’s allies would rally to him: the global electoral college on our website shows a landslide in his favour. At home he would salve, if not close, the ugly racial wound left by America’s history and lessen the tendency of American blacks to blame all their problems on racism."

10/26/08
Financial Times: "In responding to the economic emergency, Mr Obama has again impressed – not by advancing solutions of his own, but in displaying a calm and methodical disposition, and in seeking the best advice. Mr McCain’s hasty half-baked interventions were unnerving when they were not beside the point.

On foreign policy, where the candidates have often conspired to exaggerate their differences, this contrast in temperaments seems crucial. For all his experience, Mr McCain has seemed too much guided by an instinct for peremptory action, an exaggerated sense of certainty, and a reluctance to see shades of grey.

He has offered risk-taking almost as his chief qualification, but gambles do not always pay off. His choice of Sarah Palin as running mate, widely acknowledged to have been a mistake, is an obtrusive case in point. Rashness is not a virtue in a president. The cautious and deliberate Mr Obama is altogether a less alarming prospect."

10/25/08
The editors of Anchorage Daily News endorsed Obama over the Republican ticket that includes Alaska's own governor, stating that electing her "would stretch the governor beyond her range," among other comments:

"Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic nominee, brings far more promise to the office. In a time of grave economic crisis, he displays thoughtful analysis, enlists wise counsel and operates with a cool, steady hand. The same cannot be said of Sen. McCain.

Since his early acknowledgement that economic policy is not his strong suit, Sen. McCain has stumbled and fumbled badly in dealing with the accelerating crisis as it emerged. He declared that "the fundamentals of our economy are strong" at 9 a.m. one day and by 11 a.m. was describing an economy in crisis. He is both a longtime advocate of less market regulation and a supporter of the huge taxpayer-funded Wall Street bailout. His behavior in this crisis -- erratic is a kind description -- shows him to be ill-equipped to lead the essential effort of reining in a runaway financial system and setting an anxious nation on course to economic recovery."

10/23/08
The New York Times endorsed Obama (what a surprise) and criticized McCain, whom the paper endorsed in the Republican primary: "Mr. McCain, whom we chose as the best Republican nominee in the primaries, has spent the last coins of his reputation for principle and sound judgment to placate the limitless demands and narrow vision of the far-right wing. His righteous fury at being driven out of the 2000 primaries on a racist tide aimed at his adopted daughter has been replaced by a zealous embrace of those same win-at-all-costs tactics and tacticians.

He surrendered his standing as an independent thinker in his rush to embrace Mr. Bush’s misbegotten tax policies and to abandon his leadership position on climate change and immigration reform."

10/19/08
The most important was from Colin Powel who spoke without notes for about seven minutes. His endorsement is seen as slamming the door on the Republican party who used and abused him in the runup to the war and damaged Powell's reputation in the process. Personally I never understood why he went along when he seemed so unsure, but in the end he was a loyal soldier to his commander-in-chief.



The LA Times first skewered McCain: "Indeed, the presidential campaign has rendered McCain nearly unrecognizable. His selection of Sarah Palin as his running mate was, as a short-term political tactic, brilliant. It was also irresponsible, as Palin is the most unqualified vice presidential nominee of a major party in living memory. The decision calls into question just what kind of thinking -- if that's the appropriate word -- would drive the White House in a McCain presidency. Fortunately, the public has shown more discernment, and the early enthusiasm for Palin has given way to national ridicule of her candidacy and McCain's judgment."

...And then refuted the "elitism" label: "We may one day look back on this presidential campaign in wonder. We may marvel that Obama's critics called him an elitist, as if an Ivy League education were a source of embarrassment, and belittled his eloquence, as if a gift with words were suddenly a defect. In fact, Obama is educated and eloquent, sober and exciting, steady and mature. He represents the nation as it is, and as it aspires to be."

The endorsement of Obama by The Eagle of Bryan-College Station, Texas is notable because the paper has never endorsed a democrat for president in its 50 years as a publication, not even Texan native son Lyndon Johnson in 1964. The editors panned McCain's judgment in picking his running mate as well as his intractable stance on ending the war in Iraq. But this time here's the praise for Obama: "Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan -- these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be.

Barack Obama is such a leader. He doesn't have all the answers, to be sure, but at least he is asking the right questions. While we would like more specificity on his plans as president, we are confident that he can lead us ever forward, casting aside the doubts and fears of recent years.

10/17/08
The one that brought me to tears was the Chicago Tribune, which hasn't endorsed a democratic candidate in all of its 147 years as a publication and boldly compared Obama to Lincoln: "It may have seemed audacious for Obama to start his campaign in Springfield, invoking Lincoln. We think, given the opportunity to hold this nation's most powerful office, he will prove it wasn't so audacious after all. We are proud to add Barack Obama's name to Lincoln's in the list of people the Tribune has endorsed for president of the United States."

10/13/08
The New Yorker (notable for its many other reasons besides Sarah Palin to oppose McCain, but here's the pro-Obama part): "By contrast, Obama’s transformative message is accompanied by a sense of pragmatic calm. A tropism for unity is an essential part of his character and of his campaign. It is part of what allowed him to overcome a Democratic opponent who entered the race with tremendous advantages. It is what helped him forge a political career relying both on the liberals of Hyde Park and on the political regulars of downtown Chicago. His policy preferences are distinctly liberal, but he is determined to speak to a broad range of Americans who do not necessarily share his every value or opinion. For some who oppose him, his equanimity even under the ugliest attack seems like hauteur; for some who support him, his reluctance to counterattack in the same vein seems like self-defeating detachment. Yet it is Obama’s temperament—and not McCain’s—that seems appropriate for the office both men seek and for the volatile and dangerous era in which we live. Those who dismiss his centeredness as self-centeredness or his composure as indifference are as wrong as those who mistook Eisenhower’s stolidity for denseness or Lincoln’s humor for lack of seriousness."

Here is a selection of the rest of the field, which Obama is garnering at a 3 to 1 ratio, according to Editor & Publisher as of October 13.

Washington Post
Denver Post
Philadelphia Inquirer
Boston Globe
Cleveland Plain Dealer
Philadelphia Inquirer
San Francisco Chronicle
Sacramento Bee
Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Detroit Free Press

Looting America!

I do believe that history is repeating itself because a wealthy few drive it to be so. I predict today that the stock market will crash and the American dream will sink into the mud that the money changers and the money masters have created.

Who are these people?

Lehman Bros.: (2007) $34.4 million
Merrill Lynch: (2007) $24.3 millionAIG:(2007) $14.3 million
Fannie Mae: (2007) $14.2 millionFreddie Mac: (2007)$18.3 million
Morgan Stanley: (2007) $41.8 millionGoldman Sachs: (2007) $70.3 million
Bank of America: (2007) $24.8 millionJP Morgan Chase and Co.: (2007) $27.8 million
Citigroup: (2007) $25.5 million

*All
figures are one year compensation for the CEO position only and do not
include the compensation for other top executives, traders, partners,
etc.*All
figures courtesy of Executive Paywatch and based on SEC filings

For the first time in my life, I'm really scared of what is REALLY going on in the high places of our government. Who is running the show? Questions are being raised because the everyday American is suffering. Lehman Brothers, Merrill Lynch, Beahr Sterns??? Never in my days did I think we could repeat the past. Something is at odds with what drives our countries economics. Who has benefitted the most from the existance and than failure of these banks? How did we become a debtor society in government and individual accounts? America is failing.

I recall hearing a story about Abraham Lincolns greenback money that was created to fund the civil war along with income taxes. I found this article: The History of the Greenback Dollar. I'm prone to be suspicious of how the world works, and this didn't help. Is it possible that there is some fraud that has been fed to Americans? Has war always been the great deception to control the flow of money to a select few? War scared us into agreeing to the un-agreeable? I just don't know the answers to this. Insecurity drives bad decision making. What is America about to face? What is the world on the cusp of? I want to believe the spirit of America is strong and vibrant and visionary and rich in perseverance. Let it be so, to overcome what ever faces us.

I fear for Obama if he does become President that we will be looking for more from him than he ever imagined. I fear that the bleakness of our future is unavoidable and he will be blamed and the rich and well-connected will continue to become richer and more well-connected while our every day needs ignorantly feed their pockets.

Radical change is needed.

PS. If anyone knows what this means please tell me: Money in Circulation

A Letter to America

After a day of watching and reading about the state of this political debate, I am thoroughly sick and tired of the crap! Lipstick, pigs, bull dogs, book burners, troopergate, celebrities, pregnant teens, sex-ed, mooseburgers and tons of other irrelevant and meaningless debate has high jacked all the inspiration right out of me. I forgot why I hated politics until I saw why the Republicans win.

The Republican Party that I respected as worthy opponents because of their toughness has undoubtedly shown their greatest weakness. They are liars! They remake the truth into anything that makes them look like they love the everyday people, just to win elections and preserve power and dollars. Why can’t we Democrats call this unethical party out!

They claim to be a safe haven for Christian family values, yet they lie on the stump and always judge the intellectually accomplished. They claim to be pro-life, but quickly shoot down healthcare, even for Veterans. They claim to love our country, but don’t let our greatest assets, our values, be a beacon to the world. Instead they embrace torture and talk down to foreigners. I love what my country represents and for the first time in my adult life I question what many of my fellow country men think she represents. America is a beautiful land full of beautiful people. What are we really thinking about this election cycle?

When I look at the Statue of Liberty standing alone in that harbor I see an America proudly saying bring all to my shores. When I see the golden gate bridge I see a country that believes that all men and women are created equal. When I see New Orleans, I feel pride in the rich cultures we have so openly embraced. When I see the golden prairies of the heartland I feel the sentiment of all the farmers’ rewards of hard work. The Big Apple, Chitown, the Alamo, Florida Sunshine, Malibu Beach, lil ole Waverly, Virginia, Route 66 and millions and millions of other rich pockets of success and struggle that made America.

Today I lived a life like an alien in my own home. What happened to you America? Where have you gone? Is it only the landscape that can be a source of pride? Do I really know the personality of the people where I come from? Have I been falling for the okie-doke? What is this place of such conflict and pain, gotchas and put downs. Am I the only one paying attention that can understand why Michelle Obama thinks our country is mean? Or am I the only one that can see why Cindy McCain doesn’t get what she means? What is going on here?

Since when is privilege more important than perseverance? I feel like I’ve stepped into the twilight zone. Lies have been debunked, untruths uncovered. What kind of values are on display when some one lies to win the White House where we want no lies?

This day confirms a simple idea for me. Change is hard, change is painful, change can seem impossible. Republicans will hold on to what has always worked in the past. Exploit the swing voters attention span, insult the Left, put up smoke screens and mirrors because “we don’t care about those not like me.” That is the republican message, they start the culture wars and ask us to be ignorant of it all, I believe not even knowing what damage is being done to us watching the spectacle. Is this really the image they want to have? Compassionless, ideologues cynical on every issue? FEAR is the leader of the ego. FEAR is the angry message to ratchet up anger. When you peel away the skin of what is happening, I smell nothing but FEAR. FEAR creates liars from descent people.

America, are you willing to possibly be lead into another war of lies? I declare a war on lies since everything else can be warred against. SOOOO sick of the bs.

I want a President that is willing to call out the game. I want a President that will practically choose a direction that is for the good of the country whether it is left right or middle. I believe that my America is still here, I just can’t here her because the noise of ambition is killing her voice. Today I was reminded so firmly of why I am a Democrat. A LIBERAL PROGRESSIVE Democrat! I’m so proud to be a Democrat that believes our best days are to come because finally we will shut the fear mongerers the hell up! Truth is a value that should not be sacrificed to win.

Please, please, please, America, stand up with me and reject this crazy campaigning and the media’s addictive perpetuation! It is our right to know what these people stand for! Any more of what we’ve been through is very insane. Enough of the lies!!! America deserves better.

Love,
A Sick Patriot

The New York Post Got it Right?

Not that I'm as rabid as Keith Olbermann when it comes to Rupert Murdoch, but I just don't usually turn to Murdoch's media outlets for political news or opinion unless I want to learn how the other side is thinking. However, I've started checking the RealClearPolitics.com homepage every day for the poll numbers since being shown this website by a friend of couple of weeks ago (I apologize for being so far behind everyone else!) and came across a really good piece by the very liberal Kirsten Powers (she often subs for Colmes on Hannity and Colmes) from this morning' NY Post. She lays into both Obama and the national press corps for blowing their response to the Palin nomination with the most cogent analysis thus far. I've a feeling that as a woman, the ostensible dismissal out of hand of this "unknown" governor and the comparisons to Dan Quayle quite incensed liberal women like Powers, who are tired of women being underestimated by the establishment:

"Lured by the McCain camp, Obama supporters engaged in an argument about who had more overall experience - the top of the Democratic ticket or the bottom of the GOP ticket. This diminished Obama.

"Meanwhile, the media lit up in all their cultural-elite splendor.

"Alaska? they sneered. It has the population of Las Vegas! Funny how the coastal elite only sneers at red states with small populations. Howard Dean hailed from a blue state with almost the same population as Alaska and was a national phenomenon and front-runner for the presidency. Joe Biden's Delaware has a similarly small population - but no mocking was forthcoming there."

The week of the Democratic convention, Maureen Dowd and Eugene Robinson described the Democratic zeitgeist during that week. Taking different routes, both concluded that many of the Democrats had a foreboding feeling that something was bound to go wrong for the Democrats. Even in this Democratic year with an unpopular president, an economy on the skids, and wars without end in two distant lands, the Dems just could not allow themselves to feel hopeful or positive that this is their year. The columns perfectly described my own dread that something was bound to go wrong. Friday of that week, following Obama's knockout convention speech, the McCain campaign announced that Alaska Governor Sarah Palin would be McCain's vice presidential choice, and the hand wringing began in earnest!

It's as though my worst fears were realized. See I told you so! The Dems just can't win at presidential politics! And now that I'm of a mind to criticize the Obama campaign and the Dems in general for being caught flat footed regarding the Palin nomination, I was pleased to read Kirsten Powers' piece linked to on the RCP homepage today. I'm reminded that I felt this way during the primaries and my man still came through ultimately, but in watching this campaign rev up, anyonoe can see that the Dems don't play hardball like Republicans do. Republicans care about winning and Democrats care about playing by the rules. Remember that that is how Obama won the nomination, not by dispatching his opponent but by playing a slightly better game and appealing to the judges.

Imagine if Obama loses the "I told you so's" about not picking HRC as his running mate! Even Gloria Steinem might have to retract her statement that "women are never frontrunners." But I doubt she would since she's determined that Sarah Palin is the wrong kind of woman. What arrogance! Palin (I know she's not at the top of the ticket but I've fallen into the conceit that this race is between Palin and Obama, the other two old white men notwithstanding) might just deserve to win because she's shown she's willing to fight for it, unlike our languid candidate. Ironic that Palin's ascent absolutely defies Steinem's setup argument in her NY Times piece, but that's because Steinem ignores the fact that politics is about taking advantage of opportunities, not just being right.

Well, I'm Back from Summer Holiday! Let the Mud Fly until Election Day!

I haven't read any of my usual pundits in months and not even this morning, but Mrs. Obama knocked it out of the park last night, now didn't she? I hope that there were people watching who hadn't yet been "introduced" to the candidate and his family because how could they not have been moved by first her mother narrating the film, then her brother's introduction, and finally their adorable daughters bantering with their father? One would have to have a heart of stone! She spoke so eloquently and so comfortably in such a heartfelt manner that all of the hateful smears just seem utterly ridiculous. Hers is an American success story as moving as his. These are people who have worked hard for everything they have. And what they have done with the opportunities and gifts they've been afforded! Even if Obama does not become president, he is the first presidential candidate of the 21st century. Elections for decades to come will look at the 2008 election as the first of a new kind.

Watching Michele Obama's moment play out, it was rather emotional for me on at least three levels: First, I kept thinking about my own father, who like Michele Obama's father was the spiritual leader of my family. Her acknowledgment of how her father's values and consistency shaped her thinking and her commitments reminded me of my own relationship with my father. My dad set the bar high for me, but I always knew his love for his family was the deepest love that could ever be felt even when we didn't do as well as he knew we could. I am so comforted by that fact that even though I miss him terribly I know that he instilled in me an abiding sense of what's important and I'm OK with what life may throw my way. I know who I am thanks to my father's love and his strong belief in the loving bonds of family. I tip my hat to her for being able to speak from the heart without her voice even cracking because I know that I could not have done so having lost my father just two years ago this week.

Second, having attended a family gathering of my own African-American family this past weekend, I have the highest regard for Michele's parents. Though they themselves did not have college educations, they did nothing but instill in their children the importance of education and hard work. A man with multiple sclerosis and a job at the city water plant raised two children who went on to graduate from Princeton University. Would that my own extended family had known how to teach that to their children. Looking around at my cousins, aunts, uncles, and the next generation I couldn't help but wonder why folks had missed out on what to many is so obvious and necessary. It's been no secret for decades that education is an opportunity to achieve more. Why had my extended family missed out on this reality? Seeing people with so much potential working so hard to get by and seeking answers from the Kuran that are within themselves made me wonder, why do some folks get it and others don't?

And finally, what ugliness and ignorance is going to be traded in the coming months to try and tear Barack Obama down? Both camps have pledged to campaign on the issues, but both know that negative campaigning works and that smearing, I mean "defining" one's opponent before segments of the electorate get to make up their own minds is the surest path to victory. I idenify with this man so much that I often take attacks on him in some personal way. I so badly want him to win and succeed as president that I would almost rather tune out than watch him suffer the slings and arrows. However, it's so disheartening to consider what's coming that I am finally moved to act! I have to DO something to help this man get elected so that if he doesn't succeed I'll know that at least I did everything possible in my own power to influence the outcome my way. I can accept that people may not want Obama because he's wrong on their issues but if people make choices out of ignorance or unfounded innuendo, then I weep for the nation. Once again we'll get the president we deserve if we vote for the wrong reasons, such as fear.

I'm Taking a Summer Holiday

I generally find the political coverage so trivial and mean-spirited these days that I'm taking the summer off from watching and reading about the presidential campaign. I might even cancel my daily text alert from Chuck Todd! I'll start watching again in earnest during the conventions most likely, but I've returned to watching the local news and the Today Show instead of Morning Joe. Race for the White House, Hardball, and Countdown can all take hiatuses as far as I'm concerned as well. I'm sure their ratings will all show a considerable dip. And maybe MSNBC's current crop of hosts just may go the way of Ashleigh Banfield! >:-)

It's ironic that the long-drawn out Democratic primary caused such a spike in viewership, readership, and overall political interest even though so much of the commentary centered on how the primary was too long and would be detrimental to the Dems. Really everyone was a winner, except Hillary Clinton because she lost, and John McCain because no one paid him any attention. Personally I ate it up. Not having Tim Russert to put it all into context might also explain my current disinterest in part.

Now watching the pundit class trying to make political hay out of every gotcha moment is just disturbing because it shows how demeaning the political process is for both the candidates and the electorate. We really do get the politics we deserve, and since I feel that I deserve better, I'm perfectly happy to tune out until the fall. It's the current undecided voters who determine the winner in most elections, and I'm sure they're going to the beach, spending time with friends and family and just generally enjoying their summers. Why shouldn't I do the same? That's what summer is for! There's plenty of time to stress about the Iraq War, the economy, and flag lapel pins!

Hypocratic Tax Policy

Media Matters is a not-for-profit that attempts to keep the media honest on their reporting. It really is amazing to see how often we are misguided by opinions and missed facts.

One of their articles titled The Edwards standard and John McCain is on how the wealth is so skewed from the left and right. Edwards has always been criticized as being too wealthy (even though he had humble beginnings) to be fighting poverty...ridiculous! Apparently, it is okay though for wealthy candidates to continue to push their wealth to higher places. There is just something that makes my stomach hurt about this.

The article takes us through how each candidate's policies effect their personal income...I was appalled after reading this. I know the argument. "Well the rich can use their money for spending to improve the economy"...but my argument is that they only spend with other people like themselves...Big Business. So the 365K of savings for McCain is invested in what? And how is it used to better our nation? Or is it used to better their own bottom line to make them richer. 365k is a lot of money!!! Let the wealthy fund the war in Iraq. They seem to be the only ones that don't sacrifice as much for us to be there. It's always the struggling families sending their sons to fight (I end here on this note before I head off into another rant).

How am I suppose to really believe in tax programs that give the rich such huge breaks! According to this article, McCain would save 6x my annual salary in one year. I am so much more aware of the insanity of some of the political rights arguments. The majority of this country is not rich. As a matter of fact, 95% of our country makes below $250k per household (less than what the McCains will save in one year!). If you want to see how "setup" our society's tax code is, do your own research. Mind you this is just personal income...forget the corporate taxes.

The "New" Michelle Obama

Our girl kicked it on The View the other morning, folks. She spoke so beautifully and looked so stylish that the dress she wore is flying out of the stores. It's bizarre how she had to be re-imaged and reintroduced and how the Obama campaign has started a website to fight the smears, but anyone who hears her in her own words could not help but be impressed. Though I'm sure her statements are being parsed for cannon fodder that the attack machine can continue to lob at the Obama campaign, I'm also confident that any reasonably open-minded person would see nothing to be frightened of.



I have this theory abut first ladies. We like every other person who is in that role. Getting a new one is like having to buy a new car when you aren't ready to get rid of the one you've got if it's good and reliable. On the other hand if you don't like your car, you're more than happy to get rid of it in favor of a new model. (Maybe that's why people are so brand loyal when it comes to cars. Hmmm...)

It's been about 40 years since we've had two consecutive first ladies that the country has actually taken to: Jacqueline Kennedy followed by Ladybird Johnson, and consider the circumstances that precipitated that transition. I'm sure the country was predisposed to support the Johnsons as the new first family. Then after Mrs. Johnson we had Pat Nixon (disliked), Rosalyn Carter (liked), Nancy Reagan (hated, but now beloved since her husband's death and stunningly impressive funeral), Barbara Bush (liked), Hillary Clinton (despised), Laura Bush (beloved). Hopefully because the Obamas are so Kennedy-esque, Michelle Obama as first lady could harken back to the sixties as the Obamas have on so many other levels, with their young and attractive family, and break this cycle. We shall see!

The Obama Sock Puppet

Of course on its face comparing Black people to primates is offensive. But also on its face, the sock monkey is cute and I want to own one too, so there! Some folks might collect buttons, t-shirts, or posters, but I want the sock puppet and the Hillary nutcracker too! Does this make me racist AND sexist? Have I so bought into four centuries of Black degradation that I would gleefully support the latest example of oppression?

No, not at all. I simply view it as a manifestation of Obamamania in the most exciting election of my lifetime. I don't like the idea of someone getting rich off the idea if the sock monkey really takes off especially if Black folks give it an OK. But I think that whining about such things sounds weak, like all those Hillary supporters who complained about the nutcrackers being sold in airports. Yes, it was sexist and practically given a pass in a way that the Obama/Curious George t-shirt was not. Yes, no white male candidate had to endure something equally offensive. But as Peggy Noonan wrote so eloquently, women like Golda Meir, Indira Ghandi, and Margaret Thatcher knew they were up against the patriarchy yet never complained about sexism: "It is blame-gaming, whining, a way of not taking responsibility, of not seeing your flaws and addressing them. You want to say, 'Girl, butch up, you are playing in the leagues, they get bruised in the leagues, they break each other's bones, they like to hit you low and hear the crack, it's like that for the boys and for the girls.'"

So I agree with Jimi Izrael, whom I've been listening to every Friday for months on NPR's Tell Me More. Let's disarm the racists by showing that their objectification of Obama holds no power over us. We define who we are in this day and age. This is 2008, not 1908 and a Black man is at the brink of becoming president! And just ask Barack Obama himself. He's not about to be swift-boated let alone allow some dumb puppet to derail him from his bigger mission. So why don't we measure our collective racial outrage against an event like Hurricane Katrina, for example. In terms of racism and demanding a response, the sock puppet doesn't move the needle even one millimeter.

The Loss of Tim Russert

Washington lost one of its greatest on Friday, June 13th, and I must admit I've been somewhat taken aback by the outpouring surrounding Tim Russert's passing, both on a personal level and observing the rare pause taken by my adopted hometown. Of course, when the media loses one of its own who was at the top of his game, it gives television producers and the columnists a chance to celebrate their industry in a most deserved way as they wax nostalgic about their esteemed colleague and why he was special. As the coverage wore on that first weekend, with round the clock tributes not only on NBC/MSNBC but also special tributes on all of the other networks, Matt Lauer at the Today Show desk on Saturday (!), Andrea Mitchell and David Gregory hosting a special edition of the Today Show on Sunday, and then Tom Brokaw hosting a very special edition of Meet the Press with a cast of all-star greats, it became more and more evident that Tim's passing was bigger than anyone would have anticipated.

Tim Russert had become such a political fixture in Washington that losing him so suddenly is just not something any of us was prepared for. As an NBC family from way back (in the 70s during Walter Cronkite's heyday, we were watching John Chancellor), Tim had been a constant presence in my household for years but especially during this past primary season. The idea that this historic election will conclude without his insights leaves such a vacuum for me. During every primary we watched MSNBC in the evening (not CNN, thank you) and Tim on the Today Show the following morning to break it all down. On Fridays I would get my text alert announcing who would be the guests on Meet the Press, and if I couldn't watch the broadcast I was just as happy listening to the C-Span radio broadcast in the afternoon or watching the video podcast while making dinner.

Tim's sudden loss gave occasion for the powerful in this city--including the President, the Speaker of the House, and both presidential candidates--to lay aside their differences and come together. Such a coming together really only happens at rare occurrences like protocol-driven events like a state dinner, a presidential funeral, or the opening of a new national memorial. But the unexpected aspect of Tim's passing allowed everyone to put down their guard and reflect on the important contributions made by this outstanding journalist, who knew EVERYONE. His memorial service at the Kennedy Center was broadcast live by the local NBC affiliate and the local NPR outlet.

There are many reasons to admire Tim Russert, but his passing has been a reminder and an example of the fulfillment of the American dream. A guy from working class Buffalo made it to the top. And because he was so admired by everyone he met along the way, he has been deservedly lionized. His passion for everything he did and his hard work are shining examples of a life well lived. Everyone has acknowledged that Meet the Press was the best of its kind under Tim's stewardship. Like all greats, he made his work look effortless though we now know how much preparation went into each show. Tim had obvious passion for what he did and felt a deep sense of responsibility to his audience to ask questions and let folks just answer for themselves so that we could all make up our own minds. Nothing was dumbed down or explained for us, we could see it all for ourselves plainly.

But as much as he strived to be part of the rhythm that makes this town hum, Tim Russert was a man who cared about people as passionately as he cared about politics, and I believe that is at the heart of why so many of have been moved to respond to his death. On NPR's News and Notes, Gwen Ifill and Michelle Norris explained why Tim Russert mattered in one of the most moving accounts I've heard yet. Ifill explained further on TheRoot.com that Tim really was the type of guy who knew what he didn't know and wanted to surround himself with people who could teach him.

Even though Tim may be that rare person who might have wished he could have spent more time at the office, he apparently loved his family more than anything. Hearing his son Luke on the Today Show speaking so eloquently under such horrific circumstances was incredibly moving! As great as his work as a journalist was, it was plain for all to see that his greatest work was to have loved and raised such a wonderful son, born into privilege but rooted in the same working class Catholic values that Tim Russert held so dear (and who knew so deeply!).

Watching Luke made me think of my own father. Not only because I know that I could NEVER have spoken so publicly so soon after my dad's death, but also because my father always let me know how much he loved me and how much he loved his family. It's so important to let the people in our lives know how much we care! These words matter and to be comfortable saying, "I love you" can have such lasting impact and provide stability when times are tough, especially when losing a loved one.

Once in a lifetime...

I am posting based on a comment I saw on the Obama Blog today:

"The Nashville City Paper reports that superdelegate Lincoln Davis, a Congressman whose district went strongly for Clinton in the promary, has been "slow to endorse Obama." This is not remarkable in its own right, and I'm sure there are other elected officials who are not eager to get out in front of their constituents and endorse a candidate they rejected.Fred Hobbs, a state Democratic Party Executive Committee member representing part of Davis’ district said this:

"Maybe [it’s] the same reason I don’t want to — I don’t exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I’m not sure we know enough about him," Hobbs said when asked why he thought Davis wasn’t endorsing Obama. "He’s got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."

WTF?? I don't expect the bubbas and yahoos in my state to all fall into line, but for a Democratic executive to use such a scurrilous attack line against his party's presumptive presidential nominee seems to me to call for some kind of retribution from above. I have no idea whether the DNC has any official sway over the state parties - I suspect not - but Howard Dean or someone needs to call on the state party to reign this guy in.

---

Here is my response:

Dear Mr. Hobbs,

I am a woman living in Maryland, and I just wanted to make you aware of something I came across as being one of your statements:

"Maybe [it’s] the same reason I don’t want to — I don’t exactly approve of a lot of the things he stands for and I’m not sure we know enough about him," Hobbs said when asked why he thought Davis wasn’t endorsing Obama. "He’s got some bad connections, and he may be terrorist connected for all I can tell. It sounds kind of like he may be."

I want to be as open-minded and understanding as possible about these statement. Are you saying that he does not represent democratic values or democratic principles? Please help me follow your train of thoughts about the things he stands for. And when you say we don't know enough about him, what do you mean? What would you like to know more about him? Or are you saying that you don't know someone like him? Or are you saying that him becoming a senator on state and federal level is a farce? Please help me understand your thoughts because I want to atleast understand what you see that I don't. He has a respectable family history with family that served in WWII, his mother raised him with regular American values of work hard and serve others. He helped several families in Chicago overcome some really trying financial times because of steel mills closing. He wants our troops to be respected at home too. He understands the exclusion that so many people feel from our political system.

I can not and will not subscribe to the GOP standards of acceptance (or Clintons to some degree, though I don't think she meant it) of others not like ourselves. "We don't know people like him, so he must be a terrorist or do things as terrorists do..." This is fundamentally wrong! And for me it cuts me deep because that means the same would apply to me, my sons, and anyone else that looks like Mr. Obama or carries himself in a way to respect other that he doesn't agree with or are less than perfect. These are the politics that have made Americans feel cynical about serving as a citizen. You see, it is easy for the GOP to plant seeds like that into peoples head, because America is not use to the new America. America is full of disagreements, full of people that historically don't look like our forefathers and full of people that love this country because it is the land of the free no matter what we look like, sound like, come from, etc.! We must not let the GOP steal our love of country because of the seed planting they have succeeded in doing.

If you are worried about his church issues, let me tell you about my point of view about that. Many times in African American churches, the church is full of a variety of people, some with limited education, some with much, some with criminal backgrounds, some with no such thing, some from wonderful families some from broken homes. The whole gamet is there. Some are angry still over racial differences and want to explain these grievance all the time. Some are not and want those they love to soften up on those issues. See...Barack Obama is a lot like me. He has true compassion for all kinds of people, because that is what he is. I've seen the gamet of people in my life and rather than run away, I stay to understand and hopefully enlighten to a new more open and understanding way of seeing things, black and white. This is what we do as African Americans because we all have one common thread no matter what...exclusion. Exclusion from being a part of mainstream American because of what we like, see and do. The things we like see and do are because of the exclusion. So, we do a dance everyday between being who we are for each other and being enough so that we can be included. So rather than exlude people that are less than perfect we include and hope for change. That is our God given understanding and this is how I choose to believe when it comes to why he stayed in that church for 20 years. It can't be explained easily and I don't expect him to do so.

So, Mr. Hobbs, I request that you seek a new way of thinking by getting to know who he is and what he really stands for with all his imperfections and try to lead your constituents to support a Democrat. This kind of leader comes only once in a life time and I'm banking on him to be a catalyst to a better tomorrow mostly because of the way so many of the excluded view him.

Sincerely,
Ericka McLeod
Human Being
American
Democrat

Why I voted for Obama in February and why I will vote for him in November!

All of his positions (atleast all of the ones I've read thoroughly) are mine. I understand him and his tireless work to move towards being fair. He wants to de-polarize our country. I appreciate that.

Please visit this site to check on all the issues. You can see what his opponent thinks too.

http://www.ontheissues.org/Barack_Obama.htm

I'm Voting Republican!!!

This video sums it up! Very funny!

How do you like the new theme?

What a Difference a Month Makes!

Or a day or a week or an hour in this highly charged campaign! In reading my last post a MONTH AGO, I can't believe how much things have changed and how happy I am right now vs. then! Our man did it! He beat the Clinton machine! Something Republicans couldn't do even when he was impeached! The magnitude of this accomplishment is staggering. No wonder Hillary couldn't concede. She's in shock that she was beaten by such an upstart! The rest of us are as euphoric as Oprah! Even the conservatives are giddy that the democrats have finally voted to impeach the Clintons. And principled conservatives like George Will studiously backed Obama's decision to make his vice-presidential selection his own:

"Obama's choice of a running mate will be the first important decision he makes with the whole country watching, so it will be a momentous act of self-definition. If he chooses her, it will be an act of self-diminishment, especially now that some of her acolytes are aggressively suggesting that some unwritten rule of American politics stipulates that anyone who finishes a strong second in the nomination contest is entitled to second place on the ticket."

And her surrogates like Lanny Davis circulating a petition to make her the VP and Bob Johnson pressuring the Congressional Black Caucus to do the same! Another case of the "audacity of audacity" as Gail Collins put it. Thank God Charlie Rangel, Ed Rendell, and some others said, "Enough!" In the end, the superdelegates acted superbly. These people know that what is good for the party is not necessarily what's good for Mrs. (or Mr.) Clinton.

But as usual Peggy Noonan said it best: "They threw off the idea of inevitability. Mrs. Clinton didn't lose because she had no money or organization, she didn't lose because she had no fame or name, she didn't lose because her policies were unusual or dramatically unpopular within her party. She lost because enough Democrats looked at her and thought: I don't like that, I don't like the way she does it, I'm not going there. Most candidates lose over things, not over their essential nature. But that is what happened here. For all her accomplishments and success, it was her sketchy character that in the end did her in.

But the voters had to make the decision. So, to the Democrats: A nod. A bow. Well done.

May this mark the beginning of the remoralization of a great party."

I already know that Obama's success may have the power to change the course of our nation. Even if he doesn't become president, he has shown us that it is possible for America to live up to its creed. Millions will mobilize for his campaign and for their own future campaigns. Hillary's supporters will doubtless do the same. Hope is alive! Do we now all get what Michele Obama meant? Many may oppose Obama for president, but most can't help but feel something major has happened in our land. We have held up a mirror to ourselves and there may be a few wrinkles or graying hairs out of place, but I think we look pretty good today. We can certainly be proud that in this era, our democracy is atop the list of Japan and the western nations where we usually find ourselves lacking. To the good ol' U.S. of A!

If I Were a Superdelegate...

I wouldn't know what the hell to do! (Except that I wouldn't want them to run together!)

• Barack or Hillary?
• Hope vs. Experience?
• Idealism vs. Pragmatism?
• Fight to Win or Fight the Good Fight?
• Baby Boom vs. Post Civil Rights?
• Black Man vs. a White Woman?
• Hillary or Barack?

I hinted in an earlier post that I've become somewhat disillusioned with Barack Obama. Now, I'll just say it outright. He's become just a regular old politician to me, and I blame it on his mishandling of Jeremiah Wright, which I'll explain further down. Plus, election fatigue has set in. I know these primaries are energizing democrats like never before and hopefully they'll all be back to vote in the fall, but I'm just exhausted with this race and can't take much more of the chattering classes talking about what ifs. What if Hillary wins Indiana but loses North Carolina? What if he wins both? Will she drop out? What about the delegate math? Can the democratic party really afford to take the nomination away from the first credible African-American presidential candidate? Enough already with the prognostications! NOBODY knows today what will unfold after Tuesday as there are TOO MANY variables! I'm so overwrought that I don't even feel like reading my usual favorite pundits or scanning my favorite blogs. It's Monday afternoon already and I don't know what Frank Rich wrote yesterday! And I swear Chuck Todd is ignoring me as I haven't gotten an MSNBC text message since this morning.

But I seriously can't take watching Barack lose another primary and then having to watch Hillary Clinton with those apple-y cheeks and a big fake smile on her face and saying crap like, "You may have helped me win tonight, but your votes are really a win for America." I looked to you, Barack, because I would seriously like to know what it feels like to cast a vote for a winner. Not just someone who wins but someone with the political skills to make things for the good of the country happen in his or her favor , i.e. a real winner. The country is in a mood to support the next President regardless of who that is because we are all (except for 28% in the Republican base) so over George W. Bush. Inspire and connect. I believe you can do it. Besides, you'll have to do both in the fall.

I haven't voted for a winner in a presidential contest since 1992. That's because I keep supporting the democrats, who, by the way, have lost seven of the last ten presidential elections. Other than Bill Clinton, the dems haven't had a president win re-election since FDR! Ponder that a moment. That would mean that since the Great Depression and World War II--that would be the war that John Wayne made famous in those black and white movies that come on PBS on random Saturday nights (What, you don't remember all those great John Wayne movies about WWII? What, well neither do I, but ask your great grandparents about what things were like back then), the Democrats have not figured out how to appeal to the majority of Americans. The NYT's John Harwood has a theory and guess what? It has to do with race!*

Meanwhile Hillary is coming on like gangbusters! She is clearly the better campaigner, while he has run the better campaign. She was pilloried for calling the hard campaign "the fun part," but anyone can see she is clearly enjoying the fight. Criticize her gas tax holiday and she'll tell you why it's good in the short term and the long term. Appear on Bill O'Reilly and legitmize the entire network and get the Democratic establishment to realize that yes, it's just another television network. Now that she's won four of the last five (Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island, and Pennsylvania, but he won Vermont!) Obama needs to regroup and shake up the campaign staff with some new blood and some new approaches to the race as it needs to be run right now. Learn a thing or two from your opponents. Both Clinton and McCain fired people when they were losing. Well, guess what, Barack? You've been losing.

The first advice I might give is to take the gimme questions and run with them. When Tim Russert gives you a chance to talk about your sense of patriotism, it's wonderful to talk about your grandparents and World War II, but what values did they instill in you? Some Midwestern values that you could perhaps share with us and help you connect with the white working class? Right now all we know about your grandmother is that she loved you but she said things that made you cringe. It's great that Michele's dad was a hardworking shift employee with MS, but besides instilling in his children the importance of education, did she really grow up without ever having a proud moment as an American? If so, then explain why in a way that people will understand, otherwise is it really that hard to come up with an example? The Bi-Centennial Year? The Centennial Celebration of the Statue of Liberty? The U.S. defeating the Soviet hockey team in 1980 Lake Placid Winter Olympics? Michele's remarks have been out there just waiting for Barack to be named the presumptive nominee so the Republicans can paint you both as elitist and unpatriotic. Remember you'll be running against a former POW--an Annapolis grad who is the son and grandson of admirals--who chose to remain in a Vietnamese prison camp instead of leaving without his fellow sailors. Start selling yourself as patriotic and not just becaues you're likely to be the first African-American to win the democratic presidential nomination.

And now let's talk about Rev. Wright. Something does not ring true. I think I understand the why's of it all, but not not the what's. I don't think you've been honest about what went down at various flashpoints. Just because you may be ready to move forward and talk about issues that the American people care about, your enemies--and that's what they are, not mere opponents with differing philosophies of governing--will gladly keep reminding the voters that you sat in the pews of this church for 20 years without questioning some of the more radical ideas coming out of the pulpit. That's not leadership. I think that in an 8,000 member congregation there are doubtless numerous ministers on rotation and maybe Wright only preached there once a month. I take you at your word that you weren't there for certain sermons, but did you really not know the particulars of the man's reputation?

Well, you seem to have been able to take cover on that one. But what made you disinvite Wright from your campaign announcement? What was it that was so red hot that you were willing to insult a man who was like family to you? Did he understand why and gladly move to the background or did he smolder? Was he offended, as Al Sharpton was, that you would make such a calculating move? You wanted to avoid something, but what was it? Will you fully explain, or will you act like a politician on this one as well? You told Matt Lauer on the Today Show this morning that you have now distanced yourself from Wright (permanently I presume) because he had an opportunity to contextualize his remarks and instead he only amplified them. Are you really surprised that he actually meant what he said? His behavior showed that you didn't know him so well and he apparently didn't know you so well either. I guess that could be true, but I would think that any pastor, but especially one of Wright's standing in religous circles, would make it his business to get to know a congregant who is a U.S. Senator. But Wright prides himself on speaking truth to power so maybe your political ascent itself forced some distance between you two. But still he married you and Michele, baptized your daughters, and blessed your newly purchased home. Over those twenty years did you so poorly misjudge the man that you were shocked at his ideas, truly?

For me, the biggest outrage is that you knew something was up over a year ago, and you let it slide, which points to sheer political miscalculation. You had a chance to introduce yourself as a man of faith. Did you not learn that talking about faith and the path that brought you to your church and to Jesus Christ are extremely important to voters in the current political climate? Remember Tim Kaine, John F. Kennedy, and even Mitt Romney? Yet instead of taking the opportunity to get in front of this story and define yourself, you waited for it to explode. How then can we supporters of you accept your misjudgment of Wright but believe that you have the proper judgment to function decisively as president of the United States?

I still support you, Barack, but I really liked supporting you as a winner. Can you get it back on point? Please show me that you're learning from your mistakes. We have a president who thinks changing course is a sign of weakness. Show me that he's wrong and that learning from mistakes and not repeating them is a strength that you possess.
-----------------------------------
*Technically, I also helped re-elect Clinton in 1996, after he lost the Congress to Newt Gingrich in 1994 and before he went off the rails with "that woman" and got himself impeached.

Our political process is a drag!

Elitist, out of touch, soft, not a fighter, too black, not black enough, terrorist, no experience...it goes on and on.

I'm sick to death of this election. It is depressing. In my opinion, why don't we all vote for McCain and make Hillary the VP. Seems to me that's what America wants.

All Obama's negatives above don't equate to what a presidency would be like under the two opponents. I can't tell what America wants. Do they want a president that had to tell people things that seem good at the moment and then do what ever they want when in office? Or do they want the truth of what is really going on? I'm on one side of this split personality and I'm starting to believe that I many think I shouldn't believe in a better government. A working government. It seems to me this country is happy with government just the way it is. I do believe all this extra is more damning to the needs of regular people than I have before. It really keeps people's minds busy with things not meaningful to their daily lives.

My biggest beef with this election is the way the media creates self-fulfilling prophecies. You know how a parent may say to their child, "I don't want you to date outside of your race, because you will face challenges. Those challenges will be too much so I don't want you to date that person." In this example the parent is the problem! Joe Scarface said the other day that it is elitist to reject the gas tax...ignoring the fact that just by saying that he is making it so. It's bs like this that angers me. He doesn't believe that half a tank of gas could really pay for going to the beach, does he? Or a trip to Six Flags...give me a break! It's just a ploy to say SOMETHING was done, even if it has long term ramifications. If a half a tank of gas on average would make that much of a difference in your summer, than you probably don't have a car anyway! It is so condescending and cheating of regular people! But maybe the people like the emotional high from it...The stimulus package was better because of the amount, but kind of the same thing. I'm not using it to pay for new stuff. I'm paying down debt! I feel like because we are such a free society it makes it easy to play on that to manipulate people. And thus, here lies why I think politics is a drag.

My choice for POTUS is now really clear, but if America doesn't agree, then I guess I'll be stuck with 4 more years of McBush and McBush in the form of a Clinton. To me that is the choice.